Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add skills/espennilsen/pi/code-reviewnpx skills add espennilsen/pi --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/espennilsen/piWhat it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00721 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00360 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 3d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Systematic code review for Espen's TypeScript/Node.js projects.
Process
-
Understand scope — Read the changed files or the area under review:
# For git changes git diff --name-only HEAD~1 git diff HEAD~1 # For a specific area find src/ -name "*.ts" -newer <reference-file> -
Read the code — Use the
readtool on each file. Don't guess. -
Analyze against checklist — Score each category.
-
Report — Use the output format below.
Review Checklist
Correctness
- Logic handles edge cases (null, empty, boundary values)
- Error handling is explicit (no swallowed errors, no bare
catch {}) - Async code handles rejection/cancellation properly
- Types are accurate (no unnecessary
any, proper narrowing)
Security
- No secrets or credentials in code
- User input is validated/sanitized before use
- SQL queries use parameterized statements (no string interpolation)
- File paths are resolved safely (no path traversal)
- Auth checks are present where needed
Performance
- No N+1 queries or unbounded loops over large datasets
- Heavy operations are async or streamed (not blocking)
- Database queries use appropriate indexes
- Large responses are paginated or truncated
Maintainability
- Functions do one thing with clear names
- No magic numbers or hardcoded values that should be config
- Types and interfaces are defined (not inline object shapes)
- Dead code and unused imports are removed
- Comments explain why, not what
Project Conventions
- Follows existing patterns in the codebase
- File naming and directory structure is consistent
- Error messages are helpful for debugging
- Logging is appropriate (not too noisy, not silent on errors)
Output Format
## Code Review: [scope]
### Summary
One paragraph: what the code does, overall quality assessment.
### Issues
#### 🔴 Critical
- [file:line] Description and fix
#### 🟡 Important
- [file:line] Description and suggestion
#### 🔵 Minor
- [file:line] Nit or style suggestion
### What's Good
- Call out well-written code, good patterns, clever solutions
### Recommendations
- Prioritized list of changes, starting with most impactful
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 3d ago First seen · 97 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 1cd20c92dc59
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository espennilsen/pi (117 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 721 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…